1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to modeling atomic structure and field generation. In particular, working physical models for mass structure, electromagnetic field generation, photons, and gravity are described as teaching tools.
2. Description of the Background Art
The invention includes a novel model of the atom that describes the causal quantized structure of quantum fields, mass-particles, photons, and gravity, yielding predictive tools for the structure, formation, and control of elemental particles, atoms, chemical bonds, biological processes and photo-stimulation.
Early Theoretical Models—There have been numerous physical models of the atom since Lord Kelvin described it as a permanent vortex structure within the context of an ether background. J. J. Thompson improved the model with the discovery of electrons in 1897. Later the atomic model became known as the plum pudding model where the atom was pictured as holding negative electrons within a sphere of unknown non-electrical forces spread evenly throughout the atom (like raisins in plum pudding). The plum pudding model was also theorized to explain the different wavelengths of light based on the atom's size.
The pudding model was proven wrong based on experimental scattering data gathered by Rutherford almost 100 years ago. Rutherford showed that alpha particles slammed into thin gold foil sheets produced scattering only when the centerpoints collided and concluded that the entire mass of the atom is held at a finite center point. This supported the point nucleus theory and its infinitesimally small size in relation to the radius of the electron.
In 1913 Bohr suggested halo orbits for electrons, a model that explains quantum electrodynamics (QED) and electron angular momentum. This model, which shows the atom's electrons in orbit around a point-mass nucleus, is still popular today, although there are significant challenges, as it does not provide an accurate description of a point-mass center using just three dimensions. Einstein later proposed a three-dimensional space augmented with time as a fourth variable, or fourth dimension, in order to describe a space formed by a point mass in motion. This adjustment was required because a field could not be described without the point being in motion through time to create space and because four-dimension math better describes the structure of matter and fields.
Otherwise, for over 90 years the overall physical or topological model for the atom has not changed substantially from a centerpoint-mass model despite significant advances in understanding the mathematical relationships of forces and particles within the atom and the discovery of a large number of particles that form the nucleus and constitute the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Physical Models—Most models that are used for educational purposes are designed to show the interlocking of molecular and chemical bonds with a variety of unique flanges. The minute scale of the centerpoint-mass nucleus relative to the electron orbit has made physical models difficult to portray, hence the focus on bonding models. Further, physical models have not portrayed the statistical models for the electron or an organizational construct for fields and the centerpoint mass.
Mathematical models—A number of theories have attempted to mathematically unify atomic forces. The present dominant model is commonly termed the “Standard Model”. The forces of the atom have been accurately described within the context of the Standard Model, where particles and force exchanges are represented in minute detail, matching experimental results. There are at least five major types of string theory that have unique base assumptions for gauge limits and dimensions (1 through 26 dimensions). String theories add time as a coordinate in unified space-time geometry. While three dimensions can describe a point, four-dimensions (three conventional plus time) are used to describe an event and a space. Logically extended, extra dimensions have been shown to describe forces and symmetrical constructs. Popular higher dimension theories have included four, five, ten, and twenty-six dimensions. Through mathematical compacting, extra dimensions (>3) are “rolled up” to match our conventional three-dimensional world.
Several recent theories attempt to describe particles topologically, with the objective of: (1) providing boundaries and containment and (2) linking particles and forces more directly. Spin foams, twisters, M-branes, P-branes, and D-branes mathematically describe particle forces that more closely represent a conventional view of objects that can spin, rotate, resonate, and have volume. While they appear to provide a more accurate description of particles and force transfers, these theories do not describe the causal structure underlying the atom. Further, each of these mathematical models has to impose artificial limits to the math equations to account for the formation of the atom.
Mathematical models have grown in complexity because the structure of symmetry, electromagnetic fields, charge, spin, confinement, and gravity cannot be directly seen. The conventional view is that the atomic nucleus is a centerpoint mass and the vast space between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons is virtually empty. For almost 90 years, this has been considered by many as fundamental.
Current models do not establish the structure of the real and physical limits for regularizing fields and gauge limits as the center of the atom approaches zero. The models do not adequately accommodate the dynamic nature of the atom and therefore have limited ability to predict sub-atomic machinery and force interactions. The Standard Model describes mathematical relationships but is unable to locate a point in space at a given time. Relativity is not seen as relevant inside the orbit of the electrons. A new model of the atom is needed to combine the theories of the Standard Model and General Relativity to provide information in real time and space on bonding, force interactions, and atomic substructures.
Deficiencies of the Known Models
Models have enhanced our understanding of Physics over the last century; however, each has had limitations in providing a grand unification theory. Bohr's model, for example, cannot account for other basic characteristics of the atom such as scattering or spectral absorption/emission from multi-electron atoms. The Standard Model and General Relativity as mathematical models have made significant contributions to the field of physics, but, despite these advancements, there has been little progress in tying these two descriptions of matter together. They differ dramatically in scale and mathematical complexity and they have not been unified.
Topological descriptions of particles provide some guidance for the structure of fields; however, what has remained elusive is a single physical model for the atom that provides the normalization and regularization factors that guide the formation of atoms and particles. Such a physical model should be based on a limited set of rules with minimal arbitrary elements and provide predictions of future events. A successful model should predict new experimental results and at the same time unify what has already been measured. A new model should also ideally provide lattice regularization for the formation of particles and provide lattice spacing that tends to zero at the centerpoint of the particle or atom. Further, the model should define limits of appropriate expectations of gauge-invariant observables.
To date, there has been no successful theory for the natural regularizations of the atom, that is, why atoms form in such consistent ways and in such tremendous numbers of iterations.
While mathematical models may accurately describe forces on the most basic levels, they have not yielded a plethora of experimental predictions going forward; nor are they able to describe the natural limits providing quantization of light, particle scales, or atomic organization. Natural limits include the fundamental, real parameters for the formation of particles, light, and atoms with such consistency and regularization. Natural limits would also define the “machinery” underlying the structure of fields, charge, photons, and gravity. Further, it would yield constructive insights to the interaction of atoms within the context of chemistry and biology.
Another challenge to reaching a unified theory has been the significant scale disparity between the scale of force transfer and the scale of the proton. Strings are theorized to have force transfers starting on scales 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. In some gauge theories, lattice volumes are described as zero, while other theories declare the smallest material dimension as a Planck length.
The wide variety of multi-dimensional theories makes a unification theory appear even more difficult to assemble. Popular string theories range from one to 26 dimensions. Force transfers are sometimes assigned particle values; sometimes particles are theorized with no dimension. Electron excitation can only be “explained” for hydrogen and has not been successful for many-electron atoms because the current model for hydrogen requires increasing radii for each energy level, an assumption that is unworkable in many-electron atoms.
A long-standing objective has been to unify gravity with the structure of matter. Most physics theories do not include computations for gravity; much less describe the mechanism for its generation. Current theories cannot explain the structural origin of fields or handedness (chirality) despite being able to measure both with high accuracy.
Current theories also do not postulate causality for discrete sizes of particles (the “hierarchal problem”). Symmetry is described mathematically, most often as positive and negative integer values mixed with uncertainty, but current physical models do not explain a causal mechanism in the conventional realm for these values. No theory today answers the structure of mass gap, confinement, gravity, field generation, or charge. Neutrinos remain an enigma. Black holes and large cosmological objects appear to follow another set of rules. The source of extra-gravitational forces in the universe (postulated as dark matter) is not understood. No theory explains the structural reason why inertial mass and gravity mass are the same. No theory provides a structural basis for the Pauli exclusion principal or Hund's rule. Although, many theories have offered significant insights into these questions, none has proven all-inclusive.
The important role of physics in biology and chemistry is often underemphasized. While bonds can be described mathematically, physics cannot describe the structural mechanism for bonding radii or the atomic-level coding that is locked in amino acids to differentiate genes and the life they generate. Grand unification theories seek a set of equations that describe all phenomena. No such model currently exists.
Another major question concerns the nature of a dimension. Mathematically, dimensions and complexity are simply positive, negative, real, or imaginary numbers. A multi-dimension model that involves tangible structure for dimensions should render the structure of matter and forces to be real, and although complex, they should be determinable and not subject to uncertainties and probabilities. However, it has also been conjectured that four dimensions would not be visible conventionally (Jaffe, Arthur and Witten, Edward, Quantum Yang-Mills Theory, Clay Math Institute, 2000 (Web publication only)).
A successful physical atomic model should translate a dimension into conventional terms, yielding a plethora of predictions based on the model itself. The unifying solution had to provide a mechanism for “real” dimensions, allowing mass, and field descriptions in absolute time. Supersymmetry also requires a structure for gauge limits and a structure for lattice spacing where moments can converge to a unique, determinable centerpoint. A unique physical centerpoint is not found in the Standard Model.
Most mathematical models use a fixed lattice background structure to represent space in which matter exists. Others have theorized that the atom must be background independent in order to match our conventional understanding (Baez, John C., “Higher-Dimensional Algebra and Planck-Scale Physics,” in Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Length, Eds. Craig Callender and Nick Huggett, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 177-195).
Current models also do not establish the structure of the real and physical limits for regularizing fields and gauge limits as the center of the atom approaches zero. The models do not adequately accommodate the dynamic nature of the atom and therefore have limited ability to predict sub-atomic machinery and force interactions. The Standard Model describes mathematical relationships but is unable to locate a point in space at a given time. Relativity is not seen as relevant inside the orbit of the electrons.
For about four generations, debate has raged over the seemingly different physics rules inside the atom versus the convention 3-D world outside the atom. Heisenberg theorized the atom was based on discontinuous quantum points, a foundation of the Standard Model. Einstein's rules of Relativity did not appear to apply inside the electron. A new model of the atom that combines the Standard Model and General Relativity to provide information in real time and space on bonding, force interactions and atomic substructures would be of significant value in providing a detailed representation and teaching model of atomic structure and allowing development of methods to control chemical and biological reactions.